Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1387 of 1983, decided on 21st January, 1984. .

(Against the order dated 5‑10‑1983 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 326/11 of 1983).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Settlement Scheme No.VI‑‑Finding of fact that property transferred to petitioner stood transferred to respondents found established‑‑View taken by Administrator Residual Property having necessary support from record and admitted facts‑‑Inquiry leading to transfer of property to petitioner suffering from certain defects‑‑No question of law arising out in petition‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Sh.Abdul Manan, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for respondents.

Date of hearing: 21st January, 1984.

‑‑ The petitioner who has been un successful in getting transferred as residual property a plot. of land measuring 4 Marlas 116 Square Feet, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 5‑10‑1983 whereby his consti tutional petition challenging the order of the Administrator Residua: Property, Lahore setting aside the transfer made in his favour was dismissed in limine.

The petitioner claims to have applied for the plot in dispute in 1959 under Settlement Scheme No. VI. He claims to have raised a super structure over it and to have been in continuous possession of it since 1947 or near about. As the form remained untraceable, he made fresh efforts in 1974‑75 to get the form resurrected and appropriate orders passed. He was transferred, according to him, this property by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 11‑2‑1975 under Settlement Scheme No.VI. However, subsequently there was an inquiry into the matter and the reporting officer as well as the transferring officer who are the Settlement Inspector and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner denied having passed any orders concerning this property in favour of the petitioner. It was on this development that the petitioner applied for the transfer of this plot as a residual property and once again the Deputy Settlement Commissioner after local inspection and inquiry transferred the plot to him on 17‑6‑1982. After this had happened the respondents Nos. 1 to 12 sought revision of the order whereby this plot was transferred to the petitioner on the ground that a part of the property was already transferred to them as a big mansion. The Administrator Residual Property after inquiring into the matter and after consulting the records of the department came to the conclusion that this piece of land measuring 4 Marlas 116 square feet was a part of Khasra No.1961 which was transferred as a big mansion to the predecessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 12. He therefore, set aside the transfer in favour of the petitioner.

Aggrieved by this order setting aside the transfer in his favour the petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The learned Judge examined the case of the petitioner and held that the view taken by the Administrator Residual Property got the necessary support from the record and the admitted facts. The finding of fact) that the property transferred to the petitioner stood transferred to the l respondents was found established.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though there have been conflicting reports but the fact remains that the peti tioner has been in possession of the plot in dispute, that it was still an undisposed of property and that he had made applications on which it was properly transferred to him. It was also contended that in the inquiry in which the earlier transfer orders were repudiated he was not associated at all and not heard.

We have heard the learned counsel fore the petitioner and' find that the inquiry leading to the transfer of the property to the petitioner suffered from certain defects. For example, the custodian's property number was never referred to or noted in resolving whether this property which was claimed by the petitioner was available or had already been disposed of. At all the stages the property claimed by the petitioner was identified by its Khasra number. There was no effort at any stage made to associate the neighbouring property owners or even to ascertain the particulars of the neighbouring property with a view to identify the plot of which the petitioner was seeking transfer. Such an inquiry could have also made it clear whether this plot of land was already transferred as a part of some other property or not. Besides, we find that the officers making the report have disowned them. Even the petitioner was not clear about the property of which he was seeking transfer by reference to Khasra number because he has at various stages made a claim to that plot of land which is situate in Khasra Nos. 1960, 1961 and 1962. Khasra No. 1960 is said to be of 11 Marlas 353 Sq. Ft. Khasra No.1961 is said to be of 1 Kanal 78 Sq. Ft. and Khasra No. 1962 is said to be of 7 Kanals 2 Marlas and 132 Sq. Ft. To identify a portion of these Khasra numbers the authorities should have taken note of the property in order to separate and identify the claim by the petitioner. The Administrator Residual Property, in fact, examined the site plan and the plan of the property which was disposed of in favour of the respondents by auction as a big mansion. He identified the portion claimed by the petitioner as one, transferred as a part of big mansion to the respondents. There is no material on the record or in the averments of the petitioner to dislodge this conclusion or to make it even suspect. As such the High Court was justified in dismissing the claim of the petitioner. We do not find any question of law arising in this petition and leave to appeal is refused.

M.Z.M. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.